tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 2, 2016 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
effort to defend the north koreans. that continued during 2015 and the north koreans fought back. they attempted on the resolutions that were being adopted in the general assembly and human rights council to call for votes. they had allies -- the countries you would expect, who voted against the resolution. the numbers didn't change that much. the north koreans and the human rights council got maybe eight votes in support of them. those who voted against them were five times that number. so i mean -- the north koreans have tried it. this last year, this year, the north koreans announced in geneva that they weren't going to contest the brutality to which they were being subjected for their awful human rights record and when the issue of north korea was taken up in
march, the north koreans were not present in the chamber. they were present in the building, because we saw them. but they didn't bother to come into the chamber because they didn't want to have go through the embarrassment about being able to defend north korea's human rights issues. the countries that spoke out against the resolution being ,dopted, like belarus, zimbabwe didn't defend north korea. they said, we don't think an individual country should be singled out. so the north koreans after finding a, they didn't have a lot of support, said, we aren't going to contest but going to ignore it, because we don't think it's worth noting. this year, first time in several years when the resolution was taken up in geneva, it was
adopted by consensus. there were a couple of countries that disassociated themselves, but we have pressed hard and the north koreans are feeling the pressure and we need to continue that pressure. . lee: i would fully agree with what you just mentioned. feas obviously as of right now, north korea feels that the benefits of doing what they have been doing outweighs the cost. so how do we reverse that. there are as ambassador king mentioned, already a good number of sanctions, not necessarily on human rights but various sanctions for the nuclear tests and the launch of the missiles and so on. so i think it's important that proper message is sent on human
rights as well. that there should be increased sanctions and pressure to clearly signal to north korea hat this is just unacceptable. inister cato has elaborateed and we have victims, we have grace who has gone through so much in her upbringing. these are testimonies and examples of what's going on in that country. and we have to draw the line and make sure that this is something the international community is not going to accept, that there has to be a change, whether it's the return of the abducted is citizens and closing down of the we l ags in north korea and
have to ask ourselves are we doing enough? here should be more. >> thank you very much. japan is also considering measures such as issuing arrest warrants vis-a-vis in carrying out the. safety of all, immediate return and investigation to review the value and extradition of the criminals who were involved in the abductions. i will deal with the situation of identifying individuals, but to the extent that all police authorities know those who have been involved in the actual conduct, yes, we think that international warrant is most effective for those individuals
and further, as we investigate those individuals, no individuals who are criminals, other individuals who have been involved becomes clear, then we may take up measures, but we haven't gone to that stage yet and we don't have any current plans of identifying other individuals but japan is thinking comprehensively to consider how we can resolve the abduction issue and if there are effective measures, we will be implementing measures and our principles are pressure and dialogue and we will be taking all measures available and as dorsady mentioned by ambassa kings king and lee, clearly, obviously, north korea is very sensitive to various developments in the international community and there is a likelihood or a certainty that there is
monitoring that they are onitoring this very symposium. we should tell them that there is one united force in the international community to take action. so each and every word you speak showing solidarity. grace talked about one drip of water, each individual step may be small, but when accumulated, we think can invite more positive action from north korea. i am not a politician, so
high ot speak about the level. but one thing i would like to emphasize is that we, the families and also and important for all of us to understand the human rights violation taking place in north korea and , ortant to pass those words e threat, the speed at which we shouldn't think of this as a human rights issue but it's a matter of life or death. o time is limited.
time is important. it's very challenge time. in order to ensure the return of abductees from north korea, we must communicate this matter to everybody in the world. think this is very important. as a former north korean and -- rights ack i have tivist, i believe government officials or n.g.o. organizations, i encourage them and i believe the government,
south korean government or the u.s. government needs to ncourage them and help them to eep their work and do whatever they are doing. for example, radio broadcasts is great if that's in north korea and sending information into north korea. and along the civilizations. that's very great and important method we can reach out to the people and change their mind individually. you need to pressure them through the governments but also have to change the individual people's mind in north korea. and i believe those
organizations who are in south korea or in the u.s., they are doing a very good job on this part. and i also want to add one more thing, after the north korean regime falls, are we really ready to help those north korean defectors and those prisoners and people from north korea. i wanted to -- i want to commend to the organizations in the u.s., i want them to prepare after the regime falls, because right now so many refugees, fectors talk about their experience and how horrible the regime is. many of you already know that. but do we have any specific
system that actually helps those people after they get released and came out of north korean regime. resettlement education and the pressure, all three are important to put efforts if they are in the u.s. or international community. thank you. >> the fact of this meeting had some significance, but the content has been superb. i want to thank all of the panelists. we touched on topics in terms of building international pressure for change, tactical and near-term things to help the north koreans and longer-term, we could spend hours elaborating on each of these. grace. to get back
>> a look at federal land management policy. usgs. an alumni of the here are the introductory remarks right now. >> has done a lot of good work. 35 years ago, their director at the time sat down and he pretty pulled together on his own the resource eral classification. he said, look, we have two classes of minerals, reserves and resources. the reserves, i can identify, map them, drill them and i can tell you, for example, they're
versus or inferd value resources that i haven't discovered yet or hypothetical or speculative. he made that distincton and further divided resources into measured and indicated. in the upperland corner, you will see the box reserve, and that's what reserves are. they are bankable in the oil industry. you can book reserves and take it to the bank. it's collateral. same in the mining industry. so there is a difference now between reserves and resources. the media sometimes will mix them up but we need to keep them straight in our mind. if i tell you we need more critical resources, ok, there aren't any more. the resources are what they are. we need to identify more critical mineral reserves and map those and identify those and value those.
in terms of fixed time and space, economics will govern whether a mineral deposit is mineable or not. if you look at the column, economic, marginally economic, subeconomic or no one is interested in it, depending on how easy it is to get to. the more money it's going to take. as the price for a commodity goes up, there is more money available to get it. and this whole chart here can be summarized as an analogy in the oil and gas industry. the oil and gas found now is called unconventional. and that is able to be pulled out of the ground because the price for it will allow companies to go in and make unconventional discovery and production. so it all ties together that way. let's move on and look at the difference between critical and
strategic. here, too, just brief definitions. critical is essential to the economy and strategic is a subset of that, ok? the implications are listed below. the terms are often used interchangebly. sometimes they are confused. don't worry about it. it's not that big a deal. there is no official government definition. the lists of minerals in strategic and critical, they differ from time to time and because of economic conditions. they do infer a supply chain which mark will get into in a little while. they infer there are foreign imports, either partial or total and that's of interest to us. and could be severe economic repercussions for shortage of critical minerals and national security concerns will tell you if that mineral is strategic. this is one of the best published sources on the topic
and again, the definitions are a little squishy but say there are minerals that actually dictate the economic health of a nation or strategic minerals will always be critical but critical minerals will not always be strategic. now here the different minerals and elements involved in both classes. and you can read that. again, the books get into it in detail and don't belabor it too much. notice strategic minerals are rare earth and the figsable forous.s and foss national security is urgent and when we need a mineral, we need it. and basically, if you look right here at what is required for two
jet engines for a fighter aircraft, it's surprising how much and what, but even more of a surprise is the fact how much of that we have to import. and it's really something that gives us pause as far as our military requirements. i want to go through a series of maps and just to show you the geology behind critical minerals. you know, this is a generalization of deposits worldwide and i say the mine locations, the trading partners are fixed in space and time. the geology is fixed. they're there and whoever is in power, whatever. but the deposits are there. f we look -- as we look at the strategic minerals like platinum, there are much fewer deposits and they are scattered
and compare it on this image to copper, you see it on almost every continent where as the critical platinum are the black squares and the black dots. much, much more restrictive. now part of the reason we are concerned is because over the last 60 years, this is what has happened. in the 1950's, we were hardly reliant at all and you see in the lower left corner the minerals from other countries, many of them friendly. many of them, years later in the 1980's, imports beginning with russia and even china and by the year 2014, we are importing minerals, ozens of
china, canada and some of them from places in the world where we wished we didn't have to be. the countries who are most stable in the world are the best trading partners. the white house has come off of -- with a report which they give a stability index involving stability, economics, political, what have you and bavelly, the best countries are in green. the most stable. the ones in red are to be avoided if possible, yet if that is the only source of a mineral, like cobalt. closer to home. mainly in the western states. those locations are fixed by their geology. we look at a critical mineral like rare earth elements -- there are's a lot of them but there are deposits. there was only one mine operating in california by the
name of mountain pass and the company that ran it declared bankruptcy. so right now the united states has zero commercial rare earth production. the bear lodge, wyoming situation i will get to in a bit. that is our next best and only hope to produce rare earth that we need right now and i'll end my section by showing you this. since there are no commercial mines in operation now, if i go to this slide, you can see yes, there aren't any from the united states, but look at the 8-00 gorilla. 00-pound and china has cornered the market on rare ergets. japan knows it and this is something that although the price came way, way down.
still they have the market and it's something to be reckoned with. i will bring up mark hum fridays and talk about supply and demand of critical minimum -- humphreys . >> thank you for the introduction. i work for the congressional research service which is a research arm of congress. we do nonpartisan objective policy analysis for members, staff, members and committee staff. and i have been working on ineral >> this is the definition that was taken from the national research council's book where they tried to separate out the difference between strategic and
military focus where we know they have a national strategic stockpile and the critical minerals may focus more on the thing withd the main the national research council's report, it talks is a framework -- they established a framework that is widely used around the world to define what is critical, the critical nature of different minerals and show supply risks and the importance of use and lack of substitutes and further right you go, the more critical the material might be. and this is just an example of some of the minerals that they've looked at to kind of
classify. and one of the key things that came out of this is this is a fluid or dynamic type of assess meant. this was done around 2008. it was redone again by the department of energy, which looked at it, using the same matrix, to try and classify where the minerals would fit, whether they are critical, near critical, not critical. but its fluid and can change any time, can change year to year. what i have done is also highlighted this import reliance chart, which is hard to read, but there are 19 minerals that the u.s. is 100% reliant on importing. if you go down, there are many more that they are still import reliant on, but not 100%. i have taken several of these minerals and looked at them a little more closely to try to
highlight the minerals that are being used in the high-tech world, the clean energy world and to show where the supply and demand, what it looks like, what it has looked like over the past 20 years. the key thing here, though, is ot so much that we are 90 or 75% import dependent but to know where the minerals are coming from, with what countries are supplying them, who are the companies involved in production. 100% import depend it on boxite is not the same as 100% import yop inch um. mi most of the countries are friendly and allied countries, so there is less political risk
and perhaps less financial risk involved in production of some of the minerals that we're 100% dependent on. the united states has a framework, they have a policy there'sk and this shows interest in the production when it's possible. but there is also interest in developing reliable trade partners, reliable supplies of these minerals. so it's not just the emphasis on domestic production, but also on securing supplies from around the world and give the most reliable access as possible. here are some of the minerals i'm looking at. these are not classified as strategic or critical minerals necessarily. this is just a list that's been
looked at. these minerals have been looked at by the national research council, the department of energy and looked at by the union union because of their importance as i mentioned earlier, the high tech and clean energy world and also national security and defense. these are vitally important and they have been looked at moreover the last say eight or nine years just as in the past we've looked at supplies of platinum, cobalt, chromium, ad, zinc, minerals that were focused or produced in africa and the supply might have been soviet union or russia. this kind of analysis and assessments have been taking place for decades but the list of minerals has changed
recently. in this case where the united states is pretty healthy consumer of these materials, they have gone up in most categories and most of these have gone up tremendously, rare , but the real story with consumption is not the united states, it's really china. i don't have a slide to show, but china advertising for these materials has gone through the roof since the early 2000's and drying the concerns that china is producing most of these. they have supply chains whether hey are refining, making metal alloys, in part, end products and these are materials that the united states is heavily ependent on as well. his is where folks are looking
for germly minerals overall. most of this money is involving gold. precious metals. but it gives you an idea of where the money is being spent. the united states is still a destination point, even though it has 7% in 2014. and that is $750 million. so the amount of money has gone up in the united states and has been consistent where in 1996, it'ss $350 million and now up $750 million. you can see where folks have been looking. in many cases, these high-tech metals are either not found or
not found in economic quantities here. and there are lower-cost producers elsewhere in the world. here is a snapshot of some of the world reserve materials. this chart and the next chart really just let you know the concentration of where these minerals are located. you can see, almost half of the cobalt reserves are in the congo. -- 2 suppliers have well over half of the reserves of lithium. south africa and ukraine have more than half of the manganese deposits. platinum, the same thing. almost all of it is in south africa.
rare earth is more dispersed. china is the main producer although they only have about 42% of known reserves. they are still producing 85% rare threat materials. -- half of the production is taking place in rwanda and large part in the congo. they really don't know what is .oing on with tantalum australia is not producing any longer. of it is coming out of rwanda and congo. a lot of information is not available. we really don't know. here is the production picture. the production side
has really changed dramatically. it has gone up tremendously. this is where production has taken place once again. when the united states is 100% dependent, you have 91% coming from one country, 95% of the reserves in one country. there is a cause for some theern, at least to assess vulnerability. how vulnerable is the united states to disruptions, whether it be political instability or , catastrophic disasters.
if there is one source of supply and there is little capacity elsewhere, then that could be a concern. tantalum again, 50% from rwanda. there is no real assessment of reserves going on. lithium, between two countries, well over 50%. manganese.obalt, three countries dominating the production of manganese. the production side is only one side of it. when is cause for concern it comes to vulnerability, assessing the vulnerability of sources of supply.
but, that is only part of the picture. i put this slide up to show the rest of the picture that has to be looked at. when you assess each mineral on lookwn, take each one and at the entire supply chain, to see where the vulnerabilities could be along the way. not just in production, but what metal,he reductions to forming how lois, magnets, manufacturing permanent magnets. where is the supply chain for each of these minerals that we might consider possible critical minerals. think, needs to be an area that you need to drill down on a little deeper, looking at each material that is possibly where the supply chain is.
there has been a lot of concern about building out supply chains for rare earths in the united states. a lot of environmentalists on capitol hill and elsewhere. the thing is, what has to happen is, to be able to have a reliable supply chain, whatever it is. if, in fact, a complete supply chain is not develop on domestic it may be that with partnerships, collaborations between countries and companies, reliable supply chains could be built out around the world. as long as it is reliable. that is the key. think the concern here is that, with rare earth elements, this may not be a reliable supply chain for the united states. permanent magnets for both the high-tech, clean energy, and
national security needs of a country. think that is about it. >> ok, and the final leg of the talk -- in the final leg of the talk, i would like to get into that place pressure on our u.s. mining industry, such as it is right now. i'm going through four slides. we will talk about them, and you will see, i think, four different types of pressure being experienced by the mining industry. then we will get into what they will do about it. and theyre pressured
can't declare bankruptcy, then we have a bigger issue on our hands. first, i want to spotlight legal pressure. of a singlewsuits issue, sometimes environmental issue lawsuits that can stop a company's progress in its tracks. the cost for litigation are increasing and we see more and more of it here, where companies are having to litigate their way toward the permanent application that they should have had a right to file for and it didn't happen. mine in of the pebble alaska comes to before their. -- comes to the fore there. as i said earlier, the geology is fixed, so you have to work around that problem. willof these deposits
probably never be accessed. that is also an issue. let's look at access. withdrawals are probably one of the worst ways access to federal minerals. withdrawal of federal lands often happens without a proper accounting for the inventory of the minerals. depending on who is in charge, member -- minerals may not be a priority to them. deposits, once withdrawn, can never be accessed. that is something that maybe can be turned around, but you have to go back into the legal been. programs have to be initiated and relocated once you're going to withdraw lands. , as markhe explanation
pointed out, we can't fully assess the balance of our mineral deposit checkbook. we need to explore, even if we're not going to mine, we need to know what it is that is in the ground. time is another pressure felt by the mining industry. if you look at these stats, in the last 16 years including this ,ear, only 14 major metal mines less than one per year, or started. to time to obtain a permit start those mines is increasing more and more each year. the minimum is six years. the maximum can be over two decades. this is all well documented. the average is about 10 years, and i will show you that. basically, those times don't even include the pre-mining exploration and the
environmental baseline studies that have to be done, as well as feasibility studies. the fourth type of pressure is financial. deposit andny has a their permit is not forthcoming, every month or year of delay, the value of the deposit goes down, down. that is very critical to companies. the other thing is that the price of the commodity overlong periods of time is shifting and it is hard for them to plan. the declining value of the mind can be as much as a third, maybe even a half if the time delay is significant. although mark showed pretty robust spending in the united states, the decreasing investment interest is waning with the decreasing permit application time that is required. that is a fact.
gao did a report that came out earlier this year. everything that you have seen in the slides is pretty much documented in the report. let me highlight some of the things that they have come up with. first of all, three key findings. of planse quality submitted to the federal land management agency is sometimes very substandard. you may have a junior mining , maybe itbmit a plan is on the back of the envelope type thing. no. the plan is to be dutifully sent out and -- dutifully filled out and send in. on the other side of the ledger, we know for a fact -- gao has pointed out and documented the poor allocation of land management agency resources. that is documented.
the way they did it is they look in blm.ally for service they have these examples that i will show you in a minute. third, agencies are not affected with managing the mine plan review process. it has gotten out of control. remember, when i was with the usgs, we did all of the work out ,f the conservation division all the approvals, review of the drilling plan, environmental plan. it was done promptly, usually got out the door on time. things got done. everything was handled. away and betaken land management agencies don't have enough geologists to staff up, they get further and further behind despite their best efforts.
graphicreport's main shows, during a four year period of 2010 22014, they looked at to 2014, this is the allocation of these mine plan approvals in terms of the allocation. two things about this chart. number one, it ends to the right by saying 48 months. you don't see all the way up to figures that year i gave you earlier. that is sort of artificially truncated there. when you don't see here is, a lot of these plans, especially the ones that were approved quickly, were for minerals such as clay, sand and gravel, and other such materials that are critical.
they are more easily and quickly permit it. the more critical metallics take time. been 2000, there have only 14 metallic mines approved. that factors into this chart. when you compare the united states to the rest the world, here is where we stand. we are in the category for .ermit thing australia and canada have been mining longer than we have, perhaps. they really know how to handle it. their permit a time is short. chile, probably one of the world's largest copper producers, is probably right in the middle. in other countries around the world, you would be surprised that they are getting on board with environmental restrictions. that is a good thing, and it is taking more time.
by far the worst as far as the time it takes for a permit to be issued. example, atook, for the case study. this is called the bear lodge high-grade rare earth element deposit in eastern wyoming. this is very, very important. no one here probably has the intimate knowledge of this. i spent some time with the officers of this company. here is what they told me and then i researched it on my own. this is what i found. dots are the operating rare earth element minds on this planet. notice most of them are in china. one or two in india, one up there in finland. the mountain pass mine in california you see there is no longer operating. that is out of production.
slide, you see the advanced rare earth projects worldwide. these are not mines now, but the a project -- but these are projects where they are trying to become a mine. you notice beuerlein just there in wyoming and they are working on that. australia is still trying to gear up, as is south africa. onn denmark is working greenland, pursuing deposits there. the thing that makes beuerlein's wyoming not only -- beuerlein lodge wyoming a significant deposit is this. china produces most of the rare earths and they consume 60% of what they produce. they are going to have to import by 2020. how is that going to happen? on top of that, we have the last year,nkruptcy
no production, and we find china is buying up the best of the rest worldwide. the bear launch -- the bear lodge deposit is classed as the richest deposit in the western hemisphere, maybe the world. it is so important to the department of defense that they want the mine operating now. i will get to that in a minute. let's look at bear lodge quickly. by theally surprised relatively small footprint of this operation, being 900 acres over a 45 year lifespan. that is interesting to me. is not the most advanced project for rare earths, but it is not yet a mine. there has been a whopping problem with the permitting process for bear lodge.
let me walk you through this slide and try to explain why there is a problem. number one, they began work in 2004. they have been up there for 14 years. have run into a land management agency that does not .xercise in a timely manner an anti-project agency bias through the employees that has to do with the development of that deposit. and, i would like to point out that, just this past weekend in was an exposere about a foot dragging and the outside collusion of employees from the epa with regard to the pebble mine it alaska.
the legal deposition has been dead to rights, the fact that the employee admitted it. it goes on, whether we like it or not, or whether we think it doesn't. it does. the additional time was lost because of the restrictions asked of them. they were asked to put tailings back in the mine as they were mining. they were asked to build to steep -- build too steep, too long access roads, to which they cannot get permission. in the end, this is what happened. rare earth resources corporation basically asked the federal , becauset to suspend they no longer had the cash to continue. furious, actually
furious. the virginia class ballistic missile submarine replacement from the ohio class to the virginia class is going to occur . replacing the nuclear powered with thel drive stealthy drive in the virginia class. this will require so much rare earth element material -- here's the point. that number is classified. the only source of that material on this planet through the virginia class ballistic missile subs is either from the australians, who are furiously working to get up and running on their own or, guess what, china. do you think for a minute that
china is going to sell rare earth elements to the department of defense for the rare earth class? probably not. they working on their own submarine, something that dod is struggling with. considering the beuerlein example, we're going to wrap up for questions. i want to talk to you briefly about how better we can secure our future -- our mineral future. we really need in this country to improve federal stewardship. we really do. in fact, certain states do a magnetic and -- to a magnificent job with stewardship. , they how to collect understand the concept of land use. i have a quarry and i'm done
water,ng, i fill it with i stock it with fish. multiple land-use is over a century old. we would do better to forget about it as far as the land management agency goes. a typical permit takes almost a year. from the aoatistics -- from gao and others. there is congressional legislation right now pending on this. we will see how that happens. just to give you an idea, the isislation for minerals inside of the energy bill. so, the energy bill passed the senate. of course, it is in conference now. it is maybe going to be signed, maybe not. the hope of the mineral bill being passed depends on its
host, the energy bill. in the long-term, what can we do to appreciate our reliance on critical minerals? the first thing is that we are , and secondly, our high-tech standard of living. if i want these gadgets, i have got to have those minerals. there are no substitutes for them yet. also, to map all of the domestic deposits. i remember when i started with the survey, their vision, from 1879 by president hayes was to go out and map all of the lands, survey all of the materials located therein. that hasn't been done. they have strayed from their mission. that needs to be corrected. we need to also consider
disallowing more of these large multimillion acre withdrawals. it doesn't do anyone any good. we have taken the land out, we don't know where the minerals are, and now we don't know where our banks balances -- bank balance is. i've shown how much we've grown in import dependence, and so has mark. we are going to do that. industry, universities can form partnerships. doe and penn state partnered up. penn state is now pulling rare earth elements out of coal dust and coal debris. they are pulling it out without any effort using ion exchange technology. they are pulling out a half a percent, and with almost no additional effort, they are prepared to pull out 2% on and on.
additional legislation would maybe support industry-university projects, and leave the government out of it. analogy, in our closing minutes, to the u.s. energy picture and environmental stewardship. we are the number one producer of oil and gas in the world right now. we clawed and scratched our way to the top. miningogy, our minerals, , and critical mineral industry can do the same thing. we can improve ourselves to the miningthe heap, because today is not like your grandfathers mining from years ago. it is responsibly done, environmentally sensitive. these companies do not want bad press. when they mine or drill or
produce resources. they want clean, nice, good media coverage for the good work they have tried to do. in summary, we need a better way give a huge commitment to our industry. i think what i will do is i will leave it there and we will take any questions. i thank you very much for your attention. >> will we give questions -- only get questions, please wait to be called on and wait for the microphone. name andce your affiliation. i don't know why we like that so much, but we really do. i learned a new phrase, which is geopolitically correct.
i don't know where i'm going to use it, but geopolitical correctness should be studied a lot at universities very soon. so, let's have questions. >> all my life -- >> you are with? >> you. the science unit at cato. all my life, i'm told we are about to run out of this, that. are we actually about to run out of these things or is this maybe a strategic thing where we don't want the chinese controlling our resources? >> remember back to the slide i showed you with the distinction between reserves and resources. what really is hard to wrap your the around sometimes is
more we produce of a commodity , and more ground often the amount of reserves goes up, because we discover more and better ways to discover her. it is like a squirrel cage. for some of the commodities like copper, we are in no real danger of running out. as mark said, there are supply chains. but for the more critical ones, we haven't done enough critical lands. until we start to inventory more, there is the possibility of running out. >> very interesting presentations.
ex-state department. i'm curious about two things. one, there has been no mention of the possibilities with recycling. it is no doubt a small percentage, but from critically strategic perspectives, recycling has got to be on the table, i should think. aboutcond is my confusion -- ofit is a critical rare earth resources are critical for virginia class propulsion systems, why is it that it has to be a private sector or private corporation? is that the only way we can think about it? if it is so critical, are there
not federal options somehow that could be on the table? i know that is heretical in that's -- in this setting to ask that question, but a word or two i would appreciate. >> on the recycling issue, there is effort underway now to look at recycling of possible critical minerals, and there is a five-year project taking place ,ow, looking at recycling material efficiency, and substitution of his clean energy or high-tech minerals. bigger when itch comes to these particular materials. because japan was hit with the 2010 issue, they began looking
at all possibilities of securing reliable supplies of these materials. they were looking at urban could dohere they better separating out some of .he metals these things they can get. getting the other materials has been difficult. lotink they pursued it in a bigger way that we have in the united states. then addition, i mentioned university industry partnerships are starting to yield some very positive results. as i said, penn state, with their research program, they are pulling rare earths out of coal waste, which is good.
recycling certainly should be looked at more. of roomere is plenty for research on substitute materials. if we can find substitutes, we should do it, and do it as quickly as we can. back to your other question -- i don't want you to go out the door thinking that we are slammed one way or the other. this was a situation where we have few options and we are working on it. one of the things about it is, if we don't mind in this country and rely on imports from these particularly -- from the strictly environmental standpoint, then those other places in the world don't have , or much less environmental control then we do here. negative as far as the environmental quality
when you keep mining offshore. probably better to open up some lands and at least see what is there, and under strict control, do mining here. that is probably the best way to look at that in addition to the recycling, material substitutes, and also what i'm calling advanced mineral processing. there is big research there that is available to industries and universities alike. >> independent social scientist and author. i wondered you would comment on the dark side of this. is there a vulnerability to terrorism because of these critical things? is there a black market? nationalently in
geographic that there are minors in africa that are going to close minds in dangerous conditions -- going to closed mines in dangerous conditions and mining for there are personal gain. is there any of that going on here? >> there is an illegal market for some of these materials. i know in china, the rare earth markets -- the underground market is big. it may represent as much as 25% of what is being produced in china. they'll -- the government will allow this because they know, for some of these problems, they implore people. it is not necessarily that they can easily set it down, but
there is the environmental contamination issue that is becoming a bigger concern with the illegal operations. i read in one journal, they identified that tantalum is being smuggled out of the congo , and it just goes unaccounted for. lot of these materials are not even accounted for. there are structures already in place for a lot of these materials. >> you have all heard of conflict diamonds and the like, and of course, a lot of these strategic minerals have their conflict problems attached to them. of course, martin earlier explained supply-chain
vulnerabilities coming out of some places like central asia or africa. i know for a fact that tesla motors, for example, has just washed their hands of rare earths. they are going to convert to direct drive. going to get away from rare earths. they don't want anything to do with the conflict, the environmental pillaging, or the supply-chain threat. siemens, the big german conglomerate said they are going to direct drive wind powered turbines. it is starting to backlash. depending on what part of the globe it comes from -- and i showed that map of the green and red colors -- the redder it is, probably the better to stay away from. don't quite understand part
of your answer. when you say the tesla thing, we are not going to be using rare earths because we're going to direct drive. >> they are going to reconfigure their motor so they don't require the magnets to power the car. aficionado, but they are getting away from rare earths. >> that is really the way markets tend to work. them.s why we have it looks like we will take one more question let's nobody has one. >> name? >> todd, local citizen.
speaking of the so-called conflict mineral issue, there were recent protests at the apple store in one of the grand openings where a group was out front. i don't know that has continued. how do you think that is affecting their image? >> let me try and shed some light on it. the author of this book had a section on apple and the conflict minerals used to decide gadgets that we like. basically, he said apple was the 85th largest company in the world, and within the last five years, they catapulted to the largest company in the world. critical minerals are two apple corporation as oil is to exxon. in fact, apple passed exxon in
size. part of the apple apparatus is looking feverishly for material substitutes to get away as fast as they can. if you recall, i showed you the periodic table. every year, more and more. they are making themselves more and more vulnerable. what they are really trying to do is partner with universities, find material substitutes. ceramics is a big area of research now. if iineral processing, could pull out so-called conflict minerals or whatever we ,ill call them out of coal dust they are thinking about it as are many other companies who want to have an image of environmental responsibility. i think that is good. we want to be environmentally responsible. when it comes to shortages, sometimes our back is against the wall.
the question is, what are we going to do about it. my guess is that apple probably wants reduce costs. supplies are low, costs are high. we have a reception for the upstairs in the winter garden that will begin forth with. all you need to do is put your name tag back on or something like that and we will see you upstairs. [applause]
>> the presidential primaries indiana tomorrow are open. that means a person does not have to be registered as a member of a party to vote. there are 92 democratic delegates at stake and 57 delegates on the republican side. 30 of those gop delegates go to the winner of the state, with the remaining 27 divided up by the state's nine congressional
districts. you can watch our live results program tomorrow night here on c-span. to the primary tomorrow, senator ted cruz is in indianapolis tonight to talk with voters. ate coverage here on c-span 7:30 p.m. eastern. donald trump is also in the future state today, campaigning in south bend. he will be live on our companion network c-span2, scheduled to get underway at 7:00 p.m. >> thank you for being with us. let's talk about tomorrow and indiana. what are we looking at? hane: we are talking about a
make or break state right now for ted cruz, who has pulled out just about every imaginable trick to try to gain momentum after losing six states. he got the governor's endorsement, he has been barnstorming the state. he rolled out a vice presidential nominee despite the fact that he trails by some 400 delegates. for him, a lot is on the line. if he wants to stop donald trump, he really is the first step to happen tomorrow in indiana. today, he has 10 different stops across the state, not just himself but some of his surrogates. not great news coverage today. was something where carly fiorina fell off the stage. there were questions about heidi cruise answering whether or not z answering whether or not ted cruz is the zodiac killer. >> some polls show it a little closer. at the moment, it shows that
trump is in the driver seat. ane: ted cruz really does need to pull out a victory there. theou want to look at silver lining, because the expectations are low, if he that isto have success, not where the race appears to be headed. his campaign seems a bit bunkered down into the whole indiana fight. 237 -- 1237 delegates needed to win on the first ballot. if donald trump wins tomorrow, where does that put the race. ane: basically, the race is going to go delegate wise all the way through the end. there is no way for donald trump to mathematically clinch until california on june 7. even if he wins in indiana, he needs to win california two.
if ted cruz completely collapses, he could win. no matter what, it won't and until june 7. the antitrust voters republican party say they are going to keep fighting on. in the last six states that have voted in the northeast, which has been one of trumps stronger won everyhe -- he single county that voted except for manhattan. suburbs,ning cities, rural areas. can ted cruz turnaround this big and say, we are in a different region now. think theu endorsement of governopence and the announcement of carly fiorina as his running mate, why has been -- why has ted cruz
been struggling over the past six or seven days? shane: you've seen a little among republicans who have been unwilling to stand behind donald trump. chairman stood behind him, and these aren't major players but they are players. some of them are choosing donald trump. i'm not sure if it is not , or the growing sense of inevitability around donald setp, who, after the last of primaries, declared himself the presumptive nominee. he is not that yet. yes to be ted cruz in indiana and win in california. >> it does come down to delegates.
you are reporting that the new hampshire republican party has essentially canceled what would have been a controversial plan on a slate of delegates and the committee assignments. shane: this is the arcane stuff that nobody pays attention to usually. because we could have potentially a contested convention, what committees thereon, the rules committee, the credentials committee, these can be important. the new hampshire republican party, whose chairwoman has been pretty outspoken as not a trump fan, put together a slate of people and said, here is our slate. on that slate were zero people who were troubled delegates. it is pretty notable because won the state. the truck people through their arms up and complained, said the process wasn't right. it looks like they succeeded.
>> this week on "q&a," democracy now! host amy- goodman. >> 20 years of "democracy now!," and you say going to where the silence is is your motto. the corporate media leads such a gap to cover the majority of people in this country and around the world. when you turn to the networks, they have this small circle of pundits who know so little about so much, explaining the world to us and getting it wrong. now"dea of "democracy
really hasn't changed, bringing out the voices in the grassroots in the united states and around the world. i think people who are concerned deeply about war and peace, about the growing inequality in this country, about climate change, the fate of the planet are not a fringe minority, not even a silent majority, but the silenced majority, silenced by the corporate media. inan: 20 years ago, february, we have you as a guest on our morning show. here is a clip four days after you started "democracy now!." we have to ask amy goodman about this piece. why liberals find talk radio so threatening. amy: we just started a show this
week on pacifica radio called which is thew!," only grassroots national daily show. i haven't even read the article. i find talk radio -- i don't get to hear a lot of talk radio because i am doing a lot myself, but i think a lot of what we are hearing, what i am reading about what is being said, is a lot of hatemongering. brian: what is the difference todayn "democracy now!" and what it was like 20 years ago? y: we were on nine community radio stations in 1996. we started in washington dc at the pacifica radio station. i thought you had gotten a wrong number. that was the first time i was ever invited on television. it was four days after our first
broadcast in 1996. it was really remarkable. in a sense, the mission hasn't changed. i was 20 years ago on nine stations. now we're broadcasting on over 1400 not only community radio stations but npr stations, a couple of access tv stations, on pbs tv stations around the country, and also all over the world. -- we broadcast around the country. they are often translated into spanish. i think the growth from nine to 1400 is a testament for the hunger for independent voices of people on the ground who are deeply involved in their , not having the pundits on describing experiences they often don't
know about, but people themselves. toant to just pay tribute all of the remarkable producers, journalists, videographers. day tohat digging every bring people to a global audience who are speaking in their of words. there is nothing more powerful. we are on television and radio equal number. it is really instructive to look at pacifica's history. california,erkeley, a war resistor came out of the detention camps and said, there has to be a media outlet that is not run by corporations that profit from war, but run by journalists. the late dean of the annenberg school of communications at the
university of pennsylvania said not run by corporations that have everything to tell and everything to sell that are raising our children today. the first station was in berkeley in 1949, the second station in los angeles in 1959. ai in 1960. wb in 1970, kpft in houston. that station is the only radio that wasn the country blown off the air by the ku klux klan. it was only months or weeks into nts operation when the kla stuck dynamite to the base of the transmitter. i think he blew it up in the middle of singing alice's restaurant. the klan stuck 16 times the
dynamite to the transmitter and blew it up again. now, cbs was covering the return of kpft. remember if it was the exalted cyclops or the grand dragon, because i often confuse their titles, but he said it was his proudest act. i think it was because he understood how dangerous independent media could be, because it allows people to speak for themselves. when you hear people speak from their own experience, whether a palestinian child or an israeli grandmother, and his iraqi uncle or aunt in afghanistan, a child in the south bronx or in ferguson, that breaks down stereotypes and caricatures that fueled the hate groups. that is why it is a threat.
media could be the greatest force for peace on earth. instead, all too often, it is wielded as a weapon of war. brian: there you are in 2008 at the republican national convention in minnesota. >> you are violating my constitutional rights. >> backup, backup. brian: why the confrontation? this was the first day of the republican convention of 2008. we had just flown into denver from the debit -- in from denver
for the democratic convention. on the first day, before the night of the convention, 10,000 people marched for peace. in fact, they were led by men and women in uniform. they were taking great risk. they were soldiers who return home, who felt that war was not the answer. many civilians. we covered that protest. then, i went to the convention , who with rick a rally would later be an with-nominated filmmaker jeremy scale for "dirty wars." i interviewed people from alaska. remember, this is the sarah palin-john mccain convention. i get a call from our producer, he says come quickly to seventh and jackson. nicole and sharif have been arrested. they were our two reporters who,
when we finished covering the protests, they went to the public access tv station. seen there was a protest outside and had gone out stairs -- gone outside to cover it. we raced to the streets, we got to seventh and jackson, and i saw this line of riot police. i had all the credentials on, these top security clearance credentials. i was on the floor of the convention. i said, i want to speak to your commanding officer. some our reporters have been arrested. i need to have them released. that is why it -- it wasn't minutes before before they pushed me against a car, pulled my art behind my back and then pushed me to the ground.
they charged me with interfering with a peace officer. if only there was a peace officer in the vicinity. i am still desperately looking for my vantage point on the ground for sharif and the call. and demanded to be brought to him. his arm was bleeding. we are saying, we are journalists, we want you to release us now. then, the secret service came over. i am taken into the police wagon. there i see nicole, whose face has been bloody. she said, we were in the tv studio, we saw a riot police and protesters, we ran down with our video and microphone. they would not have been doing their they would not have been doing their job if they stayed in the tv studio. this was a completely contained
area at this point. they were shouting, on your face and they were saying she had to move but she said, where? she is against parked cars. she didn't know what hit her. from behind her and in front of her they came. and they took her down. the first thing to go down was the camera tumbled down. the first thing they did was take the battery out of her camera and say if you want to know what they wanted to stop happening, the recording, they had their near boot in her back and the face in the ground and they're starting to drag her which means her face is being dragged along the ground. she's telling them to calm down and they take him and they throw sharif up against a wall, hit him twice in the chest and take him down. his arm is bleeding. they face felony riot charges. i'm taken to the police garage where they've brought cages to put the protesters in and they're taken to jail. i didn't know it was happening at the time but there was such an outcry at our arrest and hundreds if not thousands of
people were faxing, calling, e-mailing the authorities to have us released. and a number of hours later we were ultimately released, first me then sharief then nicole. i was brought back to the convention center. it was over for the night. i was brought into the nbc sky box and i was being interviewed. when that was finished an nbc reporter came over and said i don't get it. why wasn't i arrested? i said were you covering the protests too? he said no. i said, well that's the thing. i don't get arrested in the sky box either. i mean, it's our job not only be in the sky boxes but get in, who is sponsoring these celebrations of democracy, the republicans and the democrats, and also to be on the convention floor and to get out into the streets. where the uninvited guests are. and there are often thousands of them. they have something important to say as well. and it's our job to get it all. i mean, democracy is a messy
thing. we shouldn't have to get a record when we put things on the record. so that's what happened to us at the convention. we would later sue the st. paul and the minneapolis police as well as the secret service. now, interestingly, the only reason we knew it was the secret service who pulled our credentials is that when i turned to the police officer i said, this is outrageous that you've just pulled our credentials. he said, it wasn't us. it was the secret service. so we sued. and the secret service wanted to be separated from the lawsuit. they didn't want to be known that they were, you know, there, and that they did this. there's all levels of authority at these, what are called special national security events. but we felt it's very critical to send a message that journalists must be protected. and all illegal arrests should not happen. ultimately it took a number of years. we won a six-figure settlement. but when we got out it was right before the next convention. we felt it was very important to send a message and part of
it was that the st. paul police would be trained in dealing with journalists. and so we thought well where do we hold the news conference announcing the settlement has been made? and we just had come from st. paul, the settlement negotiations, so we went to a large gathering of police and protesters. we went to the park in the middle of occupy wall street. we thought there will be a lot of police and they'll hear and we'll send out this message that you cannot simply arrest journalists because they don't want you, they don't want -- because you don't want them to see, you don't want the public to see what's going on. i mean, we live in a democracy. and journalism is extremely important. there is a reason why our profession, journalism, is the only one ex-plit italy protected by the u.s. constitution, because we're supposed to be the check and alance on power. >> a man named alex jones, who
could probably not think any more different than you do based in texas, has his own radio operation, but he is saying somewhat the same thing you are saying about the corporate media. again, let's run it and get your reaction. >> i've got 30 employees. i'm not exaggerating at info wars.com. go to the major stats, analytic sites, is dwarfing msnbc and all of glen beck and rush limbaugh's sites combined. one website with about six people working on it they just have all the flash so it's a giant hoax and they know people are looking behind the curtain now that the emperor has no clothes and so they are openly announcing internet tracking, internet taxes, the white house gulation czar has called for banning, "conspiracy theorists" anybody that questions the official story. the system is losing credibility. it is circling the wagons with government and the big six megacorporations to start curtailing alternative media
because we are kicking their hind end. >> are you worried that somebody is going to kick your hind end and take you out of business? >> i think that the corporate media has to change its ways. and they've learned it. i don't think -- i mean, both with newspapers and with television. i don't think it's just that they're losing audience because of the internet. for a long time they've been gate keepers preventing most views, most people from being heard. think this year with this presidential election has shown so much. those on e shock of the network tv stations when they see thousands of people coming out, for example, for bernie sanders. bernie sanders is very much expressing the views of people for example who came to occupy wall street and other encampments around the country
who were deeply concerned about the growing inequality about rich and poor and also who was profiting. i mean, what the recent study showed something like 62, 63 of the richest people in the world, i think something like 42 or 43 of them are americans have more wealth than 3.5 billion than half the planet? this is just astounding. when occupy wall street happened the media hardly paid attention at first but then mocked it. and then when the police eviscerated these encampments and said it's all over, what do they represent anyway, they represented every issue under the sun and where were their leaders anyway? well, in a sense, it was not so much a leaderless but a leader full movement and, yes, they represented many different issues because people were so frustrated with the direction that this country was going. and i think that we're seeing these movements on the ground
perculating and coming together and coalescing. president obama was elected in 2008. many different movements came together to elect him. first and foremost i think the peace movement because i think that's the reason he was the democratic candidate. the difference between him and hillary clinton was that she was for the war in iraq and he was against it. then there was the environmental movement, racial justice, economic justice ks gay and lesbian movement, all of these different movements together. now, they accomplished something historic. the first african-american president this country has ever known, which is absolutely astounding with a country with a legacy of slavery. but when it came to the issues of these different movements, you know, ending war, dealing with climate change, dealing with the inequality, people i think at that point they felt they had accomplished something so momentous they were either
exhausted or they didn't want to contribute to the racist back lash. like birther movement, something donald trump was one of the leaders of. but the suggestion that, oh, president obama, look at what he looks like. he couldn't come from here, it is so ridiculous. but not just ridiculous. it was racist. and people didn't want to contribute to that back lash. and so i think there was a fear of criticism. but one of his first promises was to close guantanamo which became such a symbol and even he admits recruiting tool for groups like the self-proclaimed islamic state and others and yet what, seven years into his presidency, still guantanamo stands. and though the congress has not helped, there are a number of executive actions he could have taken along the way to ensure that this, you know, extra outside of the reach of u.s. law but run by the united states prison would be closed. astounding most recently that president obama was in cuba,
the first president, sitting president in 88 years to go. the cuban lking to president reuel castro about human rights. just down the road, i mean if the u.s. is presenting a model, in a little corner of cuba, the u.s. then leased land. what does it do with it? it's got guantanamo. where 91 men still languish, many approved for release for decades. even back to the bush administration. many held for more than a decade without charge. it is a very painful lesson what the u.s. has come to represent to the rest of the world. >> what do you think somebody has to do in order to label themselves a journalist and, as you please, you've got very strong views and there's never any doubt what you think, but couldn't just anybody in our society say i'm a journalist and i want credentials and i should have access to everything? >> i mean, i think the whole citizen journalism movement has
been extremely important because for so long the main stream media didn't go to places on the ground. they had that elite group of pundits and so they were missing so much of the story. i mean, i think about ferguson. the networks did go to ferguson, to their credit. this is after michael brown was killed by darren wilson, the police officer. and they showed people being tear gassed. they showed the militarizeation of pleas. but even with that, there was not a lot of showing not the political leaders but the people in the crowd often -- i remember watching cnn one day and one of the journalists, i think at a protest in new york -- was walking along with the protesters and saying now we're going up 44th street. we're turning on this street. turning on that street. to his credit in the middle of the protesters. but they were a back stop. they were the scenery for his giving basically a traffic report. now we're moving up this street and that street. what about handing the mic to
them? i mean, it is that going behind the scenes and truly talking to people on the ground. so often you'll have the networks calling us and saying, who was that person? who is this person? i mean, the amazing movement that has reshaped america. three african-american women who coined this term "black ves matter" who are deeply committed to racial justice in this country. making sure microphones open up. and the way the black lives matter movement has grabbed attention they're not waiting for the networks to come to them and interview them. we're talking about decentralized movement all over this country. they're going to -- they went to martin o'malley's rally. they went to bernie sanders' rallies. they went to hillary clinton's rallies. and they interrupted. and it wasn't just the republicans. it was the democrats.
they asked, are you addressing our issues? they've really changed the shape of presidential politics in 2016. >> what would you say though to republicans, some republicans? i have no idea how they all think but some republicans say that all the coverage the corporate media are giving donald trump is really because they want to elect hillary clinton and by giving him a lot of coverage there is no way he can be elected just based on what we're saying. >> there is no question that msnbc, cnn, and fox have become trump tv. there is no question. >> for what reason? >> that is a very good question. for what reason they've done this. but certainly the statistics show that. it's not just the networks. it's the newspapers. what the washington post from march 6 to march 7, a 24-hour period, had 16 antisanders articles. the "new york times" had a piece looking at ks more recently had a piece looking at
his record, a positive piece looking at his record in congress and then it was changed by an editor to be a negative piece. and the public editor of the "new york times" then did a column criticizing this. but the networks, i mean, you look at these super tuesdays, one after the other, i remember one where, the one where donald trump was in his i call it white house south, right, one of his florida residences with all the american flags behind him. and he held a news conference for an hour where he showed, trumpeted if you will trump steaks, trump water, trump magazines, all the different trump products. it went on for an hour. now, he can hold it all night if he wants to. but the networks stayed with it? now, what weren't they showing for this hour? they can do what they want but what weren't they showing? hillary clinton had given her speech that night. they recorded it and played it after. then you go the next week or
two weeks later, i think it was super tuesday three, this was with illinois, missouri. this was very contested, five states. she had won three of them. but it wasn't clear if she'd win her home state and whether she'd win missouri. it looked neck and neck. very close with sanders. she gave her speech before that. maybe not wanting to be there after, you know, if she lost these. and that was the day rubio pulled out. they showed rubio. that was kasich. that was ohio. they showed his speech. they showed ted cruz of course. i mean, they usually show all of the concession victory speeches. and then they said that donald trump was holding a news conference again. that didn't end up being a news conference but they just kept showing the empty podium and they showed it and showed it and they were waiting and the pundits were filling in. they were looking for something. and finally they showed it and he spoke about half an hour app that was it. where was bernie sanders in all this? well, the huffington post did a very good piece at that moment saying, where was bernie
sanders? he was giving a speech to thousands in phoenix and it had started before donald trump started. why didn't they go to that? they can always cut away if they have to. but they never showed bernie sanders at all that night at a point when it was divided, 3-2. ultimately he would lose missouri and illinois, but where was this candidate? and the networks just brought you the others, but particularly, i mean, there was a report in 2015, he got 23 times more coverage than bernie sanders. and the networks make these decisions. he doesn't need to go to every community because he is being of -- being channeled into everyone's home in a way that others aren't. that has to be challenged. it's also why we need independent media going to what we say, the silences. which isn't always so silence. it's just the networks aren't shining their spotlight there. >> go back to motivation. take the corporate media and why do they do what they do and
then go back to the republicans who think the corporate media is trying to get hillary clinton elected by covering trump so much. >> i don't know if it's about getting hillary clinton elected. i mean, i think going way back i was on -- i'm invited on the networks sometimes. i was on msnbc on one of the shows and i remember it was very much at the beginning i was saying bernie sanders in person right before we went to commercial, you can't be serious. he's not going anywhere. well, that's because they're not in communities understanding people's enormous frustration. there is an offense at this. because you don't feel it in the hallowed halls of the network studios. ou just don't feel it. >> why not? >> they're not in touch. >> they're making lots of money. >> they are. i think the reason you don't have a questioning of how money is drowning politics, drowning our democracy, is because these networks are making so much money and especially in an
election year. hands down. you know, the less coverage they do the more the politicians need to pay money for their ads. but they're furnishing whole studios. they're upgrading studios because they're getting money from these ads. i think that is a huge problem. i think the campaigns shouldn't have to raise money for ads. they should have some allotted time on television. i mean, this has to all be worked out, but that way, also, because tv time is so expensive, these politicians wouldn't have to raise this kind of money, which puts them in the pocket of the corporations and the super pacs they're raising money from. host: back to democracy now, how big an organization is it? guest: well, you know, we started on nine stations. we're now on over 1400 stations. our staff is a staff based in new york city, about 25 full-time people and then volunteers, interns, fellows, and we've been doing this for
20 years. it has just been astounding the growth. working with stations all over the country. because we're on a lot of public television and radio stations we do a lot of fundraising for these stations. host: for profit nonprofit? guest: nonprofit. host: how much does it cost you here to function? guest: i don't know the exact budget but it is to cover the news all over the world, to maintain the staff but i don't know the exact budget. host: is it going to be six, seven million? guest: yes. host: and where do you get it? guestment. well, a large part is listeners and viewers. some foundations. host: for profit nonprofit? guest: nonprofit. this is nonprofit. we're nonprofit news organization. and maybe a station a week or every week or two is picking up "democracy now" and it's absolutely amazing. it's turned -- it's turned the
population of people who view public television really on its head because it is a young, diverse audience. eople committed to hearing voices like theirs and not like theirs, but where else do you get that on television and radio? host: here are two people that you know well. david goodman and a man that's also on the cover of your book, dennis moynihan. let's watch them and i'll ask you about them. >> i have to say one of the most surprising things and most moving things that happens again and again when we go and speak in rural areas and in places that are traditionally conservative areas, places like salt lake city, is soldiers and their families come up and speak with us. many of them thank us for bringing a viewpoint they are not getting. and many of them just come to
express their sense of what's going on. >> so there is a lot going on in the country. you have to get out there and cover it which is what we try to do at democracy now and which is part of our goal with this hundred city silence majority election 2012 tour. really, at its heart are the wonderful constellation of community, media, institutions that broadcast democracy now with whom our work would not be possible. host: you don't say much about it but isn't dennis moynihan your husband? guest: no, no. he is married but he lives in denver. host: i wonder why that is stated somewhere on the internet. guest: somewhere on the internet. host: yeah. that's why i'm asking you. guest: at universities and colleges in particular you have a double, triple, and quadruple check everything that you see on the internet. david is my brother. a great journalist who lives in vermont. and dennis is my colleague at
democracy now who's been there since 2000. he lives in denver, colorado, with his wife. and he has really helped to build democracy now to what it is today. we're about to embark on a hundred-city tour and as we travel the country we'll be doing the broadcast from wherever we are. we'll start in ithica, new york and move on to the ohio state university that now has "the" before it in columbus, ohio and then moving on to st. louis and kansas city and we'll be in los angeles at the los angeles times book festival. c-span covers these book festivals so well. we'll be doing fundraisers at so many different community, television and radio stations. we'll be moving on to san francisco, to the san francisco city arts and lecture series and going on to washington state, new mexico, houston, texas, louisiana, new orleans, atlanta, new york, all over.
host: what drives you? uest: the deep commitment that independent media is the oxygen of a democracy. it's essential. holding those in power accountable. you know, we're not there to serve some kind of corporate agenda. when we cover war and peace we're not brought to you by the weapons manufacturers. when we cover climate change we're not brought to you by the oil, gas, and coal companies. when we cover health care, not by the insurance industry and not by big pharma. but by individuals, by viewers and listeners who are deeply committed to getting independent information so they can make up their own mind. they don't have to agree with what they hear. but deeply believe in a forum for free speech. host: there is a fellow named john weir. do you know him? guest: i know what he did. host: this is back in 1991 and it's on youtube.
i've got a clip of him talking about when he interrupted the dan rather evening news show. it's a longer clip than we can show here, but it's -- the whole thingas veil ble and it's interesting to watch. let's watch a little bit of this where he talks about it and sets up the fact that he does interrupt the evening news show back in 1991. >> walked down the hall. it was in the middle of the war in the gulf. all these people were around. it was quite a mad scene. they didn't even notice i was walking in. trying to look quite -- television executives and strolling down the hall with our i.d.'s and stood by the side and waited for the show to start. as soon as dan rather said, good evening, dale and darrell and i ran on the set and jumped in front of the camera. and what happened was that my face pops into the screen, the lower left-hand side of the screen for about three seconds. -- fight a's ting
not arabs. >> we'll take a break for a commercial right now. i want to apologize to you for the way the broadcast came on the air tonight. there were some rude people here. they tried to stage a demonstration in the studio. our apologies for the way we began coverage of the gulf war. we'll continue after these messages. host: fight aids not arabs. >> i mean, this is such a powerful movement which we document in our book, democracy ow, 20 years covering changing america. the movement, fighting aids not the young people, you know, recently hillary clinton as congratulating nancy reagan
her and it was sadly president reagan did not mention aids in his first term or half way through his second term i think into his seventh year even though this is when the epidemic was raging. and so then you understand when you have a media that's so often just covers power and the power, the powerful, the president was not addressing aids. people on the ground in their communities were dying. this young population taken down. why? if they could put center stage this epidemic and how it was happening and putting money into research to deal with it and so you had people like john weir. i mean, it didn't only happen on cbs when they interrupted the dan rather news hour. it also happened on pbs. on the newshour.
they dealt with it a little bit differently and said, we will discuss this issue. but they were taking -- they understood how powerful media is to get out a message. they took it into their own hands. host: just another clip of john weir because i want to ask you, the question is what is it about some people that would go and interrupt a newscast like this? where does that start in life? let's watch this. >> it turned out that as a matter of fact my father worked for television. my father works for nbc tv which is a rival network of cbs. my father's job at nbc tv, he's retired now, but for 35 years his job was basically to be -- he was basically the vice president of cut the black when activists invade your studio, he was in charge of technical foulups and whenever anything went wrong they called my father. essentially when i leaped in front of the tv camera it was
john jumping into dad's tv studio and dad pulled the plug. so he took it personally. my mother's father ran a radio station in denver. he was a manager of the radio station in denver during the war. my brother is a video editor for msnbc nightly news. he edited the olympics in barcelona and seoul and korea and has emmy awards. it was basically as if i had violated the family temple. host: whether you agree or disagree, watching the whole thing on youtube is interesting. if somebody wants to see the whole thing. but what is it, listen to that family. and this man for some reason or other was quite willing to break all of the codes and jump in front of the camera. >> i don't think it was for some reason or other. it was because his community was being decimated. his friends were dying. this is nothing compared to that. and what was something was letting this country know and when they saw millions of dollars, now billions of dollars being put into war, to
kill people but not to save people here who are suffering from this epidemic, not being talked about, he decided to take action himself. and it's very important to be you said ether as you agree or not, hear why people do something. i think about scott olsen, a young marine who served two tours of duty in roirk. this is advancing much further now into the roirk and afghanistan wars. and he came back to the united states and he ended up being on the front lines of protest in oakland at occupy oakland. here was this former soldier and there are many veterans and former soldiers who have been a part of the occupy movement. and he got shot in the head by a bean bag projectile of the oakland police. they almost killed him.
went unconscious. people around him didn't know him. went to pick him up. they were hit with a flash grenade. the group that went to save him right in front of the police because the police didn't want this gathering in front of them, horrific story. but scott just stood by his values when he regained consciousness ultimately came was was e hospital, he part in 2012 of the antinato summit in chicago. now, this is very interesting, what happened. scores of soldiers marched and they threw their medals back like what happened back in the early 1970's with john kerry when he came back from the vietnam war. they did the same, throwing their medals back. and these soldiers in 2012, two of the reporters that came, democracy now was there and did a number of shows on this. but two of the reporters that went to cover it, the